Thomas vs Southwick Car Centre Ltd

This case concerned the assessment of costs payable by the Claimant to the Defendant, focusing on whether the Claimant had the protection of the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) regime.

TLDR:

• Ms. Yvette Thomas filed a personal injury claim against Southwick Car Centre Ltd.
• The court had to determine if the QOCS regime applied to the Claimant.
• The court concluded that the Claimant did not have QOCS protection.
• The Claimant was estopped from claiming QOCS protection due to previous representations.

The Claimant, Ms. Yvette Thomas, pursued a personal injury claim against the Defendant, Southwick Car Centre Ltd, alleging that an incident at the Defendant's premises caused her injuries. The case was heard in the Senior Courts Costs Office, with Costs Judge Leonard presiding.

The primary issue was whether the Claimant had the protection of the QOCS regime, introduced to the Civil Procedure Rules on 1 April 2013. The QOCS regime generally protects personal injury claimants from adverse costs orders, except in cases of fundamental dishonesty or where pre-commencement funding arrangements are in place.

The Claimant had entered into a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) in August 2012 and an After the Event (ATE) insurance policy in October 2012. The Defendant argued that these pre-commencement funding arrangements excluded the Claimant from QOCS protection.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the history of the Claimant's claim. It found that both the CFA and the ATE policy met the statutory definitions of pre-commencement funding arrangements. The court also considered whether these arrangements were void or unenforceable but found no sufficient basis for such conclusions.

Additionally, the court noted that the Claimant had previously represented to the Defendant and the court that this was not a QOCS case. The Defendant relied on these representations and did not apply for a finding of fundamental dishonesty, which could have disapplied QOCS protection.

The court concluded that the Claimant did not have QOCS protection due to the pre-commencement funding arrangements. Furthermore, the Claimant was estopped from claiming QOCS protection because of her previous representations.

This case highlights the importance of clear and consistent representations regarding funding arrangements and the potential consequences of misleading statements in litigation.

Legal representatives: Jacqueline A. Perry KC (instructed by Harding Mitchell Solicitors Solicitors) for the Claimant, Simon Teasdale (instructed by Dwf Law Llp LLP) for the Defendant.

Judicial Panel: Costs Judge Leonard

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1315 (SCCO)